SomaliNet Forums

Surely he was met with resistance by those that didn't agree with the message he was carrying. It was they who were protesting and resisting his message and not the other way around.

Remember God put laws in place to be followed by mankind at the very begining.Through time mankind broke alot of the rules put in place for them to live by. As it happens messengers were sent to redirect mankind to the correct path. Some accepted the re-education while others resisted and chose other paths. By this act alone, they are/were protesting against the rules put in place for them to live by.

This means the NABI (pbh) had nothing to protest about and was re-educating the people of rules and how they should follow them.

He knew of the rules through revelations and lived by them and was re-educating the rest of the forgotten rules that were already in place.

zingii wrote:Surely he was met with resistance by those that didn't agree with the message he was carrying. It was they who were protesting and resisting his message and not the other way around.

Remember God put laws in place to be followed by mankind at the very begining.Through time mankind broke alot of the rules put in place for them to live by. As it happens messengers were sent to redirect mankind to the correct path. Some accepted the re-education while others resisted and chose other paths. By this act alone, they are/were protesting against the rules put in place for them to live by.

This means the NABI (pbh) had nothing to protest about and was re-educating the people of rules and how they should follow them.

He knew of the rules through revelations and lived by them and was re-educating the rest of the forgotten rules that were already in place.

lool you're playing with semantics now. If you go against the status quo, ur protesting. Here's the definition of protest, an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something

Nabi Muhammad was the protestor, he was the one who was trying to change things, he objected what the Quraish were doing. U can't call the people who are saying let's keep things as it is, protesters. That's ludicrous, that's changing the entire definition of the word.

What with the indha adeegnimo, and acting like you don't understand exactly what is happening?

Shirib wrote:

zingii wrote:Surely he was met with resistance by those that didn't agree with the message he was carrying. It was they who were protesting and resisting his message and not the other way around.

Remember God put laws in place to be followed by mankind at the very begining.Through time mankind broke alot of the rules put in place for them to live by. As it happens messengers were sent to redirect mankind to the correct path. Some accepted the re-education while others resisted and chose other paths. By this act alone, they are/were protesting against the rules put in place for them to live by.

This means the NABI (pbh) had nothing to protest about and was re-educating the people of rules and how they should follow them.

He knew of the rules through revelations and lived by them and was re-educating the rest of the forgotten rules that were already in place.

lool you're playing with semantics now. If you go against the status quo, ur protesting. Here's the definition of protest, an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something

Nabi Muhammad was the protestor, he was the one who was trying to change things, he objected what the Quraish were doing. U can't call the people who are saying let's keep things as it is, protesters. That's ludicrous, that's changing the entire definition of the word.

What with the indha adeegnimo, and acting like you don't understand exactly what is happening?

The defenition tells me the opposite of what you are trying to convice me. It tells me that the protesters were those that objected, disapproved, and opposed the rules that were already in place. They showed and made clear their opposition to the rules GOD put in place.


To make it easier and simpler lets pretend that am a police officer that works for a government and you on the other hand are a common man. The government put in place a law that prohibits farming in residential areas. This law has been in place before you were even born and you knew and heard of it. One day you consciously decided to embark on a farming project in your own backyard though its prohibited. The government then tasks me to have you put a stop to what you were doing. Following the orders of the government i came to your house and asked you to stop farming. You then objected the orders and kept on farming.

In this picture that i have painted for you, who is the protester, the officer who is enforcing the rules or the one breaking the rules?

If you say something is haraam, you have to produce the proof. These people are following the hadeeth of "if you see a munkar, you must change it with your hand, if you can't then do it with your tongue..". They're going out and stopping the munkar with their hands and tongues, and there's nothing that seperates them from the actions of Jihad. Infact we've seen in Libya and Syria exactly what grew out of the protests. So these $cholars for dollars who are telling ppl to go home, and for palestinian youth to put down their rocks and get back under the zionist boot are just shayaateen, and no sane person will ever listen to them so they can keep talking.

Aliyyi Oromada wrote:If you say something is haraam, you have to produce the proof. These people are following the hadeeth of "if you see a munkar, you must change it with your hand, if you can't then do it with your tongue..". They're going out and stopping the munkar with their hands and tongues, and there's nothing that seperates them from the actions of Jihad. Infact we've seen in Libya and Syria exactly what grew out of the protests. So these $cholars for dollars who are telling ppl to go home, and for palestinian youth to put down their rocks and get back under the zionist boot are just shayaateen, and no sane person will ever listen to them so they can keep talking.

Bro these people don't give a shi.t about munkar, they are running around like headless chickens screaming "Fariiddam!" like they even know what the bloody thing means. Granted they have been oppressed and the leaders were corrupt, but that doesn't give the excuse for you to protest and fight against your leader. They are living in heaven if you compare it to most african countries and Egypt's economy was set to rise before the "revolution", now it looks uncertain. To me they are just a bunch of gaalo-wannabes.

We've already seen that in every case, the liberal wannabes are the minority and will always come up short. These people are restoring dignity to the disgraced Arab name and you can say what you want, but they're just marching forward.



Allahu Akbar Guul iyo Gobanimo

zingii wrote: The defenition tells me the opposite of what you are trying to convice me. It tells me that the protesters were those that objected, disapproved, and opposed the rules that were already in place. They showed and made clear their opposition to the rules GOD put in place.


To make it easier and simpler lets pretend that am a police officer that works for a government and you on the other hand are a common man. The government put in place a law that prohibits farming in residential areas. This law has been in place before you were even born and you knew and heard of it. One day you consciously decided to embark on a farming project in your own backyard though its prohibited. The government then tasks me to have you put a stop to what you were doing. Following the orders of the government i came to your house and asked you to stop farming. You then objected the orders and kept on farming.

In this picture that i have painted for you, who is the protester, the officer who is enforcing the rules or the one breaking the rules?

With out a shadow of a doubt, its the one who's breaking the rule. Walaahi this is straight forward, you're playing with semantics, and trying to put in a new definition.

Protesting is going against the status quo. Muhammad saw was going against the status quo, he was a revolutionary, he changed everything about the jaahil Arabs. The guy who wants to keep things as is can't be the protester. That's like saying Mubarack was the protester protesting against all those people in Tahrir Square